Let me state upfront that this piece presents my personal view as a Motswana and a media practitioner by training and experience who happens to have the privilege of one of the high offices in government. I had the opportunity to briefly participate in a radio debate over the issue of government having taken issue with the behaviour of some of the media in Botswana, with respect to the manner of reporting on issues that have been making headlines for some time now, including perhaps most prominently the story of the modest home of His Excellency The President in Mosu that he has built out of his personal resources.
The bone of contention seems to be over the merits of the pronouncement by government that support may be offered to individuals and institutions of the state that fall victim of undue media attack and scrutiny connected to their profiles as holders of public office. I was unable to continue with the radio debate as I was travelling and could not stop due to a time strict appointment in Werda in Kgalagadi South.
What I want to do here therefore is to share my personal perspective on the issue of media and government confrontation that hopefully was explored during the radio debate. For me the discussion over this matter should be whether or not government is justified on taking the position it has taken. We need a complete, objective and credible debate here, including an appreciation of what might have led to government seeking redress so to speak. It cannot be right to limit the argument to projecting just the media belief that by being taken head-on by The State over real or perceived unprofessional conduct the media believes it is being gagged, intimidated or threatened for playing its role of a public watch-dog.
If we want to be taken seriously as an industry not just by consumers of our produce but by other professions as well, we must be prepared to answer all of the hard questions to get to the truth of the matter in the same manner that we expect full and complete answers when we ask the hard questions. Has the media been truthful, ethical and objective in presenting the news about the topical issues, clearly separating fact from opinion? Have we been denied unclassified information by those entrusted with it such that we can claim justification to speculate and make reasonable assumptions?
Do we have a credible professional body that safeguards our reputation and the rights of the citizenry to information by among other requirements enforcing minimum qualifications for application, acceptance and accreditation to practice as a Journalist in Botswana? What about a Code of Conduct or practice with attendant provisions for redress for persons and institutions aggrieved by publications or broadcasters? Have we rigorously sourced and verified our facts with specific and complete attribution before publication? All things being equal, has there been no significant undue offensive behaviour or reporting by us in the media devoid of personal value-judgements as to the character and personality of persons and institutions that we reported on, and can we show concrete evidence of provocation and/or justification when called upon to do so? A puso e a re iphetlhela?
If we can answer these questions with an unflinching yes, then I would agree that the media has a case in reacting the way it has reacted to the decision of The State to support public service litigation against the media for slander and libel where such may occur. Otherwise I would suggest that we have nothing to fear and we should be ready to defend ourselves in court and to win. I suspect though that media monitors who may wish to look carefully into the pages of some of our newspapers and listen to the recordings of some of our radio stations may find that in more than one instance we may have sacrificed accuracy and verification for speed, and treated material or packaged it not as it was from the original source. One phone call typically on deadline – and Mr/Ms newsmaker’s phone “went an unanswered at the time of going to press.” One subscribes to the notion of fair comment and ‘qualified privilege’ for the media where issues can be said to be in the public interest however we define it. I accept that a media practitioner can err where they genuinely did not know that what they got was false and therefore one had no malicious intention.
Safety is in the cardinal rule to verify and even double-source in cases of controversial, doubtful or significant material. But then one suspects that we would be hard pressed to prove that where errors, omissions and injurious reporting have been brought to our attention we retracted or corrected our actions at the earliest opportunity and that we dealt with the sting of the defamation without playing around with vague words. My aim in this article was not to ask and answer the questions, but to contribute to the debate and hopefully make some useful pointers to how as the media industry in Botswana we can improve our reporting on issues that matter to our nation, respecting our freedom of thought, belief and expression, and that of our newsmakers, that I believe we enjoy in Botswana. It is no use crying foul when fingers can be pointed at us for several deficiencies in our industry and practice.
